love Jarmusch. didn't like the movie much. It's so lazy, even if It has its moments. It's exactly what I would have expected from a zombie-sploitation flick made by Jarmusch. Without the tiniest modicum of surprise. yawn. and it had such a great cast. I should rewatch "only lovers left alive".

I saw it on an early preview showing and it's a pretty decent comedy Zombie flick. Especially since I could not figure out where it was heading.

I was definitely disappointed with Chloë Sevigny's character's development.Of course Bill Murray played his normal low key character to perfection. The star studded cast was underused, but understandable considering a lot of them were playing bit parts.

My favourite moment in the movie was when we all got to see Adam Driver's character's car key. ;-)

It's definitely an enjoyable movie. If someone likes "campy darkish Zombie indie comedies", then it's worth it to go see it in theatre, else wait until it comes out on a streaming service since it definitely does not need to be seen on a big screen.

Spoiler: show

Just had to get this off my chest.

The only picky plot point I have with this movie is that if it's going to sort of break the fourth wall, it had better get the reference correct:

Since Bill Murray's character had stated that he read his parts of the movie, he'd know how it ends as well as Adam Driver's character since they both share the same end scene. He claims to no know what happens when Adam Driver's character does.

Edit: Grammar change that corrects the meaning of the sentence about Chloë Sevigny's character's development. It's amazing how much difference one missing "'s" makes.

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

Reviews are inherently subjective editorial; it's all "how they feel".

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

While I agree that Jennifer's reviews definitely have a contrarian streak to them (that MIB: International review ... woof), Occam's Razor suggests that she simply has ... eclectic tastes; I don't think she's doing Armond White or Zizek levels of trolling.

I mean, heck, my favorite bad movie of all time is the 1994 Street Fighter, and I will defend Prometheus until my dying breath. Different strokes and all that. That said, I do agree with her statement that The Dead Don't Die is going to be pretty polarizing. I was always skeptical, especially after the most recent (awful) trailer, because while I adore Jarmusch's work, I never quite felt that he was the best fit for a zomb-com. I didn't much care for the movie, which is disappointing considering the cast's pedigree.

I mean, heck, my favorite bad movie of all time is the 1994 Street Fighter, and I will defend Prometheus until my dying breath. Different strokes and all that. That said, I do agree with her statement that The Dead Don't Die is going to be pretty polarizing. I was always skeptical, especially after the most recent (awful) trailer, because while I adore Jarmusch's work, I never quite felt that he was the best fit for a zomb-com. I didn't much care for the movie, which is disappointing considering the cast's pedigree.

In short, don't waste your time or money on this even at the dollar theater or torrenting it, this was really, really bad (and not in a /good/ bad way).

Just for perspective, I like other zombie movies (Zombieland, Cockneys Vs Zombies, Shaun of the Dead), and campy movies (Zoolander, Clue, etc.). They tried to stuff in all of the current popular things like breaking the 4th wall, good actors & actresses, but it just didn't work at all. This was as bad or worse than "The Association" and can only have a future in a MS3K revival.

Jarmusch doesn't quite break the fourth wall, but Driver and Murray do occasionally break character to openly acknowledge that they are in a movie. [..] Ronnie explains it's just the theme song of the movie.

Jarmusch doesn't quite break the fourth wall, but Driver and Murray do occasionally break character to openly acknowledge that they are in a movie. [..] Ronnie explains it's just the theme song of the movie.

That is definitely breaking the fourth wall.

The thing is, the characters never directly address the movie audience.

They only talk to each other, but are sometimes aware that they are actors in a movie. So I agree with Jennifer that it's "sort of" breaking the fourth wall, but not "entirely" breaking the fourth wall. ;-)

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

Reviews are inherently subjective editorial; it's all "how they feel".

No need to be... would you expect your English comp teacher to judge your papers based on ’feel’? Movie reviews don’t have to be subjective, there are very clearly defined reasons for why things work and how they trigger people and their emotions, as well as easily objectively measurable ideas of quality, given the context of funding and obvious goal/intent, that can be quite definitively used. People who understand that make good movies (such as say Nolan’s Memento, or even Carpenter’s Last House n the Left), and those that don’t end up being like Jon Peters with Wild Wild West. Yeah the latter may be a fun adventurous romp (just like Police Academy) still doesn’t make it not crap.

Hell I admit I have guilty pleasures, doesn’t mean if asked about the quality of said guilty pleasure I don’t own up to the fact it is objectively crap but for whatever reason I personally enjoy it (again see Police Academy). And when we’re talking $75-100 to take a family of four to the movies I would prefer not to be wasting it on mindless objective crap. That is what streaming is for, it’s also why I find reviews suspect because they get comped tickets. If you’re the one spending $20 plus concession costs it changes your opinion as to value.

Jarmusch doesn't quite break the fourth wall, but Driver and Murray do occasionally break character to openly acknowledge that they are in a movie. [..] Ronnie explains it's just the theme song of the movie.

That is definitely breaking the fourth wall.

The thing is, the characters never directly address the movie audience.

They only talk to each other, but are sometimes aware that they are actors in a movie. So I agree with Jennifer that it's "sort of" breaking the fourth wall, but not "entirely" breaking the fourth wall. ;-)

Directly addressing the audience is just one way the fourth wall can be broken. It's not the definition of the term, just an example of it. Any time the characters show that they are aware they are in a work of fiction, the fourth wall has been broken.

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

Reviews are inherently subjective editorial; it's all "how they feel".

No need to be... would you expect your English comp teacher to judge your papers based on ’feel’? Movie reviews don’t have to be subjective, there are very clearly defined reasons for why things work and how they trigger people and their emotions, as well as easily objectively measurable ideas of quality, given the context of funding and obvious goal/intent, that can be quite definitively used. People who understand that make good movies (such as say Nolan’s Memento, or even Carpenter’s Last House n the Left), and those that don’t end up being like Jon Peters with Wild Wild West. Yeah the latter may be a fun adventurous romp (just like Police Academy) still doesn’t make it not crap.

Hell I admit I have guilty pleasures, doesn’t mean if asked about the quality of said guilty pleasure I don’t own up to the fact it is objectively crap but for whatever reason I personally enjoy it (again see Police Academy). And when we’re talking $75-100 to take a family of four to the movies I would prefer not to be wasting it on mindless objective crap. That is what streaming is for, it’s also why I find reviews suspect because they get comped tickets. If you’re the one spending $20 plus concession costs it changes your opinion as to value.

Yes, I would, because outside of pure grammatical and linguistic correctness, the grading of English (or any writing) can be highly subjective and very much based on "feel". Teachers can give wildly varied grades on the exact same work.

Consider the case of Carpenter's The Thing, for example. On release, it was almost universally panned as trash. Today it's considered by most to be a classic for the same reasons it was originally considered trash. Did the objective measurements change? There's no theorem equivalent to "1+1 always equals good writing. Instead, there's a generally accepted consensus on what constitutes good writing.

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

Reviews are inherently subjective editorial; it's all "how they feel".

No need to be... would you expect your English comp teacher to judge your papers based on ’feel’? Movie reviews don’t have to be subjective, there are very clearly defined reasons for why things work and how they trigger people and their emotions, as well as easily objectively measurable ideas of quality, given the context of funding and obvious goal/intent, that can be quite definitively used. People who understand that make good movies (such as say Nolan’s Memento, or even Carpenter’s Last House n the Left), and those that don’t end up being like Jon Peters with Wild Wild West. Yeah the latter may be a fun adventurous romp (just like Police Academy) still doesn’t make it not crap.

Hell I admit I have guilty pleasures, doesn’t mean if asked about the quality of said guilty pleasure I don’t own up to the fact it is objectively crap but for whatever reason I personally enjoy it (again see Police Academy). And when we’re talking $75-100 to take a family of four to the movies I would prefer not to be wasting it on mindless objective crap. That is what streaming is for, it’s also why I find reviews suspect because they get comped tickets. If you’re the one spending $20 plus concession costs it changes your opinion as to value.

Yes, I would, because outside of pure grammatical and linguistic correctness, the grading of English (or any writing) can be highly subjective and very much based on "feel". Teachers can give wildly varied grades on the exact same work. Look at the case of Carpenter's The Thing, for example. On release it was almost universally panned as trash, yet, today, it's considered a classic. Did the objective measurements change? There's no theorem equivalent to "1+1 always equals good writing. Instead, there's a generally accepted consensus on what constitutes good writing.

Can you define an objectively "measurable idea of quality" for me?

Playing devil's advocate, yes, there are things which are universally considered bad writing. It was all a dream, deus ex machina, retconning cliffhangers, god did it, the conflict ball, plot holes, failing to obey Chekov's gun, etc..

I would argue that any script making significant use of such tropes would be objectively badly written. The existence of people who liked the work doesn't change that analysis, it just means that those people don't care if the writing is bad.

But in general, I agree with you. It's not really possible to make an objective analysis of most movies. However, that doesn't mean there's no objectivity in the process, or that some movies aren't objectively bad.

No offense to Jennifer but her tastes often directly oppose mine. So I'm not sure now if this movie is any good, and I was previously excited to see it.

Edit: Perhaps it's one of those things where it's safer to just dislike most movies so people think you just have high standards than it is to enjoy movies. Perhaps that's why critics kinda suck. Keep up the positive reviews.

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

Reviews are inherently subjective editorial; it's all "how they feel".

No need to be... would you expect your English comp teacher to judge your papers based on ’feel’? Movie reviews don’t have to be subjective, there are very clearly defined reasons for why things work and how they trigger people and their emotions, as well as easily objectively measurable ideas of quality, given the context of funding and obvious goal/intent, that can be quite definitively used. People who understand that make good movies (such as say Nolan’s Memento, or even Carpenter’s Last House n the Left), and those that don’t end up being like Jon Peters with Wild Wild West. Yeah the latter may be a fun adventurous romp (just like Police Academy) still doesn’t make it not crap.

Hell I admit I have guilty pleasures, doesn’t mean if asked about the quality of said guilty pleasure I don’t own up to the fact it is objectively crap but for whatever reason I personally enjoy it (again see Police Academy). And when we’re talking $75-100 to take a family of four to the movies I would prefer not to be wasting it on mindless objective crap. That is what streaming is for, it’s also why I find reviews suspect because they get comped tickets. If you’re the one spending $20 plus concession costs it changes your opinion as to value.

Yes, I would, because outside of pure grammatical and linguistic correctness, the grading of English (or any writing) can be highly subjective and very much based on "feel". Teachers can give wildly varied grades on the exact same work.

Consider the case of Carpenter's The Thing, for example. On release, it was almost universally panned as trash. Today it's considered by most to be a classic for the same reasons it was originally considered trash. Did the objective measurements change? There's no theorem equivalent to "1+1 always equals good writing. Instead, there's a generally accepted consensus on what constitutes good writing.

Can you define an objectively "measurable idea of quality" for me?

There are certain rules which are universal within context, which addresses your Thing statement. For example if you re-read the original reviews that bash it you will notice one consistent thing about them, they ignore the context of what the director was trying to achieve and the story he was attempting to tell (a reimagining of ‘Who goes there’) and from that perspective it was a success. The characterizations, logic of the story, etc. all works. One of the biggest criticisms of the story for example was ‘the issue or the Thing taking over people would have easily have been solved by the buddy system’ but that leaves out the context of the environment, the fact that they were already stressed, etc due to their current work environment, and the fact that people who participate in said programs tend to be heavy type A personalities that think they have all the answers, and adding the Thing to the equation pushed them over the edge. It’s not that it was a bad movie/story it was that the reviewers didn’t take into account the context surrounding the setting.

Same thing with why I believe the Last Jedi was an objectively bad movie because when it is taken in context with everything we know much of it makes no sense, and the wholesale lifting of scenes from previous movies makes it lazy. Yeah sure people may love it, I love an old HBO movie called Cast a Deadly Spell, doesn’t mean it is objectively a good movie and I am ok with that. To me it shouldn’t be about taste, it should be about when taken in context of everything do the actors perform well, does the story make consistent and logic sense, is it told in an appropriate manner, what is the quality of writing (again in context), quality of cinematography, editing, dialogue, music, etc.

As for different grades for the same work I never experienced that. When I was in school I could show the same paper to different teachers/professors and unless they were being lazy the criticisms were fairly consistent. If I didn’t provide a compelling hook, didn’t follow logical progression (again within context), properly established the story, etc. they all universally said so and left their opinion out of it. Just like in music there are certain rules that work and are known to work for a reason, and unless you establish the reason for why something violates said rules it is kind of a bad idea to just randomly break them (to use Memento as an example, it breaks the rules of forward momentum in the story by telling it backwards in snippets; however, early on it establishes that it is from the point of view of the main character whose memories last for no more than 5 minutes so it works because it establishes in a logical fashion why the expected rule is being broken).

But yes one can absolutely quantify quality within the context of a work. It’s why things like music theory and film appreciation exists.

They only talk to each other, but are sometimes aware that they are actors in a movie. So I agree with Jennifer that it's "sort of" breaking the fourth wall, but not "entirely" breaking the fourth wall. ;-)

I wonder if that would be more about being genre savvy as opposed to actual fourth wall breaking, since the fourth wall is literally the wall between the movie and the audience and thus, kind of requires that the characters address said audience in order to break the fourth wall. [/pedant]

More likely a case of medium awareness, though reading ahead in the script could be a more accurate trope.

To be fair, there are some things that are objectively good or bad as regards quality in a movie. If a plot has holes in the writing with no indication that it's meant to have those holes, that would be a problem, objectively speaking. Then there's issues with special effects and whether they accomplish the desired result (the recent Aladdin movie, for example, has some issues with the effects of the genie that could be a real make or break issue for some viewers sensitive to such issues). Stuntwork, sound editing, costuming, camera work, etc, etc, etc. All of those can have elements that are able to be objectively critiqued as well as things that are more subjective or related to style preferences.

Playing devil's advocate, yes, there are things which are universally considered bad writing. It was all a dream, deus ex machina, retconning cliffhangers, god did it, the conflict ball, plot holes, failing to obey Chekov's gun, etc..

All of those have counters, though, where the use or abuse of the device was actually very clever as opposed to bad writing. The final episode of Newhart being a prime example. The recent comment regarding context is a good one.

They only talk to each other, but are sometimes aware that they are actors in a movie. So I agree with Jennifer that it's "sort of" breaking the fourth wall, but not "entirely" breaking the fourth wall. ;-)

I wonder if that would be more about being genre savvy as opposed to actual fourth wall breaking, since the fourth wall is literally the wall between the movie and the audience and thus, kind of requires that the characters address said audience in order to break the fourth wall. [/pedant]

More likely a case of medium awareness, though reading ahead in the script could be a more accurate trope.

To be fair, there are some things that are objectively good or bad as regards quality in a movie. If a plot has holes in the writing with no indication that it's meant to have those holes, that would be a problem, objectively speaking. Then there's issues with special effects and whether they accomplish the desired result (the recent Aladdin movie, for example, has some issues with the effects of the genie that could be a real make or break issue for some viewers sensitive to such issues). Stuntwork, sound editing, costuming, camera work, etc, etc, etc. All of those can have elements that are able to be objectively critiqued as well as things that are more subjective or related to style preferences.

Playing devil's advocate, yes, there are things which are universally considered bad writing. It was all a dream, deus ex machina, retconning cliffhangers, god did it, the conflict ball, plot holes, failing to obey Chekov's gun, etc..

All of those have counters, though, where the use or abuse of the device was actually very clever as opposed to bad writing. The final episode of Newhart being a prime example. The recent comment regarding context is a good one.

I'm glad someone called out the 'everything is subjective' line. In art too, many things depend on skill and experience which can be objectively looked at.

They only talk to each other, but are sometimes aware that they are actors in a movie. So I agree with Jennifer that it's "sort of" breaking the fourth wall, but not "entirely" breaking the fourth wall. ;-)

I wonder if that would be more about being genre savvy as opposed to actual fourth wall breaking, since the fourth wall is literally the wall between the movie and the audience and thus, kind of requires that the characters address said audience in order to break the fourth wall. [/pedant]

More likely a case of medium awareness, though reading ahead in the script could be a more accurate trope.

To be fair, there are some things that are objectively good or bad as regards quality in a movie. If a plot has holes in the writing with no indication that it's meant to have those holes, that would be a problem, objectively speaking. Then there's issues with special effects and whether they accomplish the desired result (the recent Aladdin movie, for example, has some issues with the effects of the genie that could be a real make or break issue for some viewers sensitive to such issues). Stuntwork, sound editing, costuming, camera work, etc, etc, etc. All of those can have elements that are able to be objectively critiqued as well as things that are more subjective or related to style preferences.

Playing devil's advocate, yes, there are things which are universally considered bad writing. It was all a dream, deus ex machina, retconning cliffhangers, god did it, the conflict ball, plot holes, failing to obey Chekov's gun, etc..

All of those have counters, though, where the use or abuse of the device was actually very clever as opposed to bad writing. The final episode of Newhart being a prime example. The recent comment regarding context is a good one.

I'm glad someone called out the 'everything is subjective' line. In art too, many things depend on skill and experience which can be objectively looked at.

Yep, objectively, in the opinion of 19th century critics, Von Gogh couldn't paint.

...Same thing with why I believe the Last Jedi was an objectively bad movie because when it is taken in context with everything we know much of it makes no sense, and the wholesale lifting of scenes from previous movies makes it lazy. Yeah sure people may love it, I love an old HBO movie called Cast a Deadly Spell, doesn’t mean it is objectively a good movie and I am ok with that. To me it shouldn’t be about taste, it should be about when taken in context of everything do the actors perform well, does the story make consistent and logic sense, is it told in an appropriate manner, what is the quality of writing (again in context), quality of cinematography, editing, dialogue, music, etc.

In the case of TLJ, I'd say that a better story flow could have been put together with the given elements, reordering story and plot between TFA and TLJ, at least for the masses. Whether the writers were too accustomed to highly disjointed and out of timeline sequences, or using memory/backstory explanations too heavily due to plot holes, I don't know, but while I had little issue with either movie, there is understandable criticism that I can acknowledge but doesn't apply for me. I readily admit having Luke's flashback of training Ben Solo (Kylo) should probably have been near the beginning of TFA. (I just checked, apparently these were last minute additions, so filling plot holes - bad writers)

They only talk to each other, but are sometimes aware that they are actors in a movie. So I agree with Jennifer that it's "sort of" breaking the fourth wall, but not "entirely" breaking the fourth wall. ;-)

I wonder if that would be more about being genre savvy as opposed to actual fourth wall breaking, since the fourth wall is literally the wall between the movie and the audience and thus, kind of requires that the characters address said audience in order to break the fourth wall. [/pedant]

More likely a case of medium awareness, though reading ahead in the script could be a more accurate trope.

To be fair, there are some things that are objectively good or bad as regards quality in a movie. If a plot has holes in the writing with no indication that it's meant to have those holes, that would be a problem, objectively speaking. Then there's issues with special effects and whether they accomplish the desired result (the recent Aladdin movie, for example, has some issues with the effects of the genie that could be a real make or break issue for some viewers sensitive to such issues). Stuntwork, sound editing, costuming, camera work, etc, etc, etc. All of those can have elements that are able to be objectively critiqued as well as things that are more subjective or related to style preferences.

Playing devil's advocate, yes, there are things which are universally considered bad writing. It was all a dream, deus ex machina, retconning cliffhangers, god did it, the conflict ball, plot holes, failing to obey Chekov's gun, etc..

All of those have counters, though, where the use or abuse of the device was actually very clever as opposed to bad writing. The final episode of Newhart being a prime example. The recent comment regarding context is a good one.

I'm glad someone called out the 'everything is subjective' line. In art too, many things depend on skill and experience which can be objectively looked at.

Yep, objectively, in the opinion of 19th century critics, Von Gogh couldn't paint.

Van Gogh was part of the post-impressionist movement. He was in regular contact with successful artist of the day and his critical reputation was growing. If Van Gogh mental health issues hadn't curtailed his work before his suicide, he would have been an established artist. The popular legend isn't true.

Jarmusch doesn't quite break the fourth wall, but Driver and Murray do occasionally break character to openly acknowledge that they are in a movie. [..] Ronnie explains it's just the theme song of the movie.

That is definitely breaking the fourth wall.

The thing is, the characters never directly address the movie audience.

They only talk to each other, but are sometimes aware that they are actors in a movie. So I agree with Jennifer that it's "sort of" breaking the fourth wall, but not "entirely" breaking the fourth wall. ;-)

Directly addressing the audience is just one way the fourth wall can be broken. It's not the definition of the term, just an example of it. Any time the characters show that they are aware they are in a work of fiction, the fourth wall has been broken.

The Collins Dictionaries disagrees.

Quote:

(esp of a character in a television programme, film, or play) to refer to, acknowledge, or address the audience, usually for comedic effect or as an avante-garde technique

The TV Tropes site has a pretty good article about it and acknowledges that it is sometimes used in a broader sense now rather than the original theatrical definition.

Quote:

Breaking the fourth wall is when a character acknowledges their fictionality, by either indirectly or directly addressing the audience. Alternatively, they may interact with their creator (the author of the book, the director of the movie, the artist of the comic book, etc.). This is more akin to breaking one of the walls of the set, but the existence of a director implies the existence of an audience, so it's still indirectly Breaking The Fourth Wall.

Named for the theatrical convention of building sets with right, left and back walls, while the audience observes the action through an imaginary "fourth" wall located at the front of the stage. Breaking the fourth wall would occur when the actors would step through where the virtual fourth wall should be and address the audience directly.

I saw the movie yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. I can understand how the film isn't for everyone. Several side characters dont contribute much to the main story, and Chloe Sevigny's arc comes to a rather abrupt end, (although I would argue that her arc fit the overall tone of the film as a whole)

People have pointed out that the film is a sort of sendup on the zombie genre, although I would argue that the movie is more specifically a sendup of George Romero's films, especially: "Night of the Living Dead", and "Dawn of Dead" both of which are obliquely referenced a number of times.

Lastly, I'll just say that I loved the fact that Tilda Swinton's character basically existed as a way to point out just how weird the real life Tilda Swinton is.

love Jarmusch. didn't like the movie much. It's so lazy, even if It has its moments. It's exactly what I would have expected from a zombie-sploitation flick made by Jarmusch. Without the tiniest modicum of surprise. yawn. and it had such a great cast. I should rewatch "only lovers left alive".

Sounds like you need a good dose of Zombieland or Warm Bodies, truly inventive takes on the genre.

I get the Jarmusch criticism: sometimes his style is refreshing, at other times not so much. This is definitely one of the not-so-much instances. It's not unusual for indie auteurs to hit or miss in the extreme ... David Lynch and Hal Hartley come to mind.

So... what’s with the reviews lately? I disagree with Sam most times bit he is at least in line usually with other reviewers, and I can see where he is going though I disagree with what he uses as objective qualifications for ‘good’ film. Jennifer tends to consistently be completely opposite of pretty much everyone else, professional reviewer and audience alike. And this one is ranked pretty poorly by both reviewers and audience goers again. Are people just putting down how they ‘feel’ about the movies anymore rather than objectively determining if they are good or bad based on writing, character development, method of communicating the story, etc. as reviews should generally be?

Jarmusch gets regularly panned by mainstream critics, but there’s not a single movie he’s directed that I haven’t enjoyed - often immensely. Aesthetics are always, to some extent, a matter of taste. You have to find reviewers who share your sensibilities and put stock in the ones you trust. Jarmusch is decidedly offbeat.

I was a bit reluctant about watching it at first because most reviews I read didn't really like it. Then I thought "well, it's Jim Jarmusch, probably they just didn't get it" and watched it anyway. And exactly: This isn't a film about zombies at all. It's a film about zombie films in the disguise of a zombie film. Jarmusch casually kicking down the fourth wall and just as nonchalantly breaking the genre with that UFO just underlines this.

So if you really want to see a zombie film you probably will be disappointed, but if you like films and cinema generally you certainly will enjoy it a lot as a kind of homage to zombie films (as I did in fact). Also in some ways it may be the first "zombie" film for all of the family. And the cast is thoroughly enjoyable anyway. And there is a real film nerd in it.